#United States #California #San Rafael #Alcohol Justice #AB 342

Activists Urge Rejection of California's AB 342 Bill

In a significant push within the realm of public health and safety, activists across California are rallying against a controversial proposal known as AB 342. This legislation seeks to extend the hours for alcohol sales in bars, restaurants, and clubs until 4 AM, a move that many fear could amplify existing public health issues.

The bill, which is currently under review by the California Assembly Governmental Organization Committee, has ignited concerns among health advocates and community leaders who warn that extending alcohol sales would exacerbate the already troubling statistics surrounding alcohol-related harms. Advocates argue that the change would dismantle the state’s long-standing last call policy, currently set at 2 AM, and could lead to increased incidents of drunk driving, assaults, and preventable deaths.

Cruz Avila, Executive Director of Alcohol Justice, emphasized the dangers of this legislation, stating, “This bill is a reckless attempt to prioritize the profits of the alcohol industry over the well-being of Californians.” He presented stark statistics highlighting the alarming rise in alcohol-related deaths, which have surged by 70% over the past six years—from 10,800 annual deaths in 2015 to 19,335 in 2021. Avila and similar activists believe that extending bar hours would only worsen these issues, putting countless lives at risk on California’s roads.

Furthermore, a report titled "The High Cost of the 4 AM Bar Bill" crafted by Alcohol Resource Group and Alcohol Justice sheds light on the substantial consequences that could emerge from this bill. Investigating the potential implications reveals a dire forecast:

• - Increase in Drunk Driving Fatalities: Data from the California Office of Traffic Safety indicates a worrying trend, with deaths due to drunk driving growing from 966 in 2019 to 1,370 in 2021. An extension of alcohol sales to 4 AM is expected to result in more intoxicated drivers on the road during peak morning traffic hours.

• - Community Impact: Traffic accident analyses revealed that alcohol-related incidents predominantly occur in urban areas with extended alcohol sales. Statistics show a 58.2% likelihood of alcohol-related accidents occurring on routes from San Francisco to Marin County. Such trends reveal the danger not just to urban dwellers but also to neighboring communities.

• - Economic Burden: The cost of alcohol-related harm is astronomical, estimated at around $35 billion per year in California. An increase in alcohol sales could heighten demands on public safety resources, necessitating more police presence and emergency services to counter the resulting fallout from increased booze consumption.

The bill has faced significant backlash from various community sectors, with many advocating for public safety over potential economic gains for alcohol vendors. Tom Lackey, a member of the California Assembly, called the proposed legislation a disaster in the making, stating, “Expanding alcohol sales will increase the number of intoxicated drivers and lead to more accidents and tragedies.”

The history surrounding this legislation is pivotal. Since 2013, California has seen six attempts to pass similar alcohol sale extensions, all of which have failed, reflecting a collective understanding among lawmakers that prioritizing alcohol revenue could lead to adverse consequences.

Given the overwhelming opposition from health advocates, community leaders, and even some lawmakers, demands for the assembly to reject AB 342 continue to grow. Activists are not only urging officials to uphold the current last call policy but are also emphasizing the need to prioritize community health and safety above corporate profit motives.

In this ongoing conflict, Raul Verdugo, Director of Advocacy for Alcohol Justice, articulated the essence of the matter, asserting that the proposal stands to erase decades of peer-reviewed research and public policy that protect California’s communities. “AB 342 is a dangerous pathway that would eliminate protections that have served our communities for years,” Verdugo stated firmly.

As the committee deliberates, the voices of activists echo throughout California, highlighting a critical intersection of public health, safety, and business interests. As discussions progress, the fate of AB 342 remains uncertain, setting the stage for a pivotal moment in California's legislative landscape concerning alcohol regulations.